dtdxdx

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@PunterJeff @HHorsley @saylor @ryQuant @PrestonPysh @Excellion @adam3us Awesome, thanks for sharing

[Bob Burnett @boomer_btc]

To expand on Vijay's point here, Microsoft operating systems are great way to looking at things. I started working with Microsoft on very early versions MS-DOS for some of the world's first mobile computers, and I continued working with them bring all of their new OSs to the market (especially Windows versions) until the mid-2000s. I did this first as an engineer with Zenith working on early personal computer designs and later as the CTO for Gateway. (Interesting side note, in the mid to late 1990s, Gateway was Microsoft's largest customer.)

In those days, as Microsoft prepared "OS upgrades" we would go through long beta periods before they'd be released to the public. During these beta periods, extensive testing by our teams as well as those of all other major PC companies, and usually several of their large enterprise clients, would be occurring. The range of issues we would uncover during these periods (much like Testnet now for Bitcoin) would always be massive. You'd be amazed at how small changes to one area could ripple through and cause massive problems in a seemingly unrelated area.

At some point, the OS would move from beta to production, and we'd all release it to the world. I can say without exception that within days we would be dealing with several bugs that hadn't been caught during the beta phase and we'd go into panic mode and start working with Microsoft on emergency patches. We'd be spinning new device drivers, new versions of firmware, making OS patches, and releasing updates to application software all in an attempt to get the PC ecosystem working properly with the new OS. Sometimes, because all of these patches were rushed, the second and third order impacts would cause catastrophic failures in things like the file systems, or the ability of hardware like storage devices or graphics cards, to even function. There'd be finger pointing and usually shouting matches between hardware folks, firmware folks, and software folks. Sometimes there'd even be lawsuits.

The reason I talk about is because the issue of Bitcoin ossification or at least the rate of change is at the forefront. @saylor and @PeterMcCormack covered this topic well in their recent talk on @WhatBitcoinDid. Michael talked about it from his perspective as an aeronautical engineer, and I'm here to tell you as guy with decades of experience in computer system design, that change in complex systems - especially ones like Bitcoin that must function flawlessly at all times - MUST happen at a snail's pace. Even a few years of testing is not a long time.

Like Michael, I have often spoken about looking at Bitcoin with a 1000-year lens. Done properly, it can be the world's premier monetary system for centuries but one mistake and it all could crumble down. So, as these debates rage, and different factions push for changes, keep this mind. Change can still happen, but Bitcoin is not like an operating system where patches and work-arounds can quickly fix a problem. Most changes will be difficult to put back in the box or correct quickly.

Bottomline: if you love Bitcoin and believe that it gives hope to the world, then make sure that the things you support protect the mother ship. If you not 100% sure that a change will help, then pass on it until you are sure.

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@PeterMcCormack @saylor Self sovereign could be gradually then suddenly too? first wide adoption then…..

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@DavidFBailey Not a good idea, in long term

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@jyn_urso is BTC really permission-less?

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@Beautyon_ 🔥🔥🔥

[Michael Burry Stock Tracker ♟ @burrytracker]

Ray Dalio explaining the clearest indicator of when a currency will decline

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Always think about this with my little fluffy dog. My big dog does look like a wolf.

[dtdxdx @dtdxdx]

@RnaudBertrand Very insightful, thanks for sharing. Only I don’t think US will stop, it has to create a external enemy to blame for its internal problems as these internal conflicts can’t be solved within its system now…… as Ray Dalio and Jeff Booth pointed out. I hate to see this

[Michael Ruiz @sovmindset]

I find the situation in El Salvador interesting.

Initially, I thought Bitcoin was the main narrative. It is a part of the story, no doubt, and will become a bigger part as time goes on… but, after talking with the locals and listening to their perspectives, it seems to me that the real story is about President Bukele and his policies.

How his plan and the execution there of literally turned this country around in just a few short years.

This revelation is what I’m wrestling with. And is leading me to reconsider my libertarian and anarchist roots.

I've been wondering about whether strong leadership, almost in the form of a benevolent king, combined with a robust and proud national identity, is essential for prosperity and property rights, or if sound money, like Bitcoin, can be enough to turn society around.

Personally, I’m now way more in favor of a monarchy, or small republic than I ever was before.

What do you think?

[Arto Bendiken @bendiken]

@sovmindset You may find this previous case example illuminating as well:

https://t.co/EoK7VWOeaR

[Walker⚡️ @WalkerAmerica]

@PeterSchiff It’s been paid.

[Hunter Horsley @HHorsley]

A common question I get asked is "I imagine most of your clients are younger?"

This is not the case.

What is the case is that younger generations and experienced generations come to conviction for different reasons.

The advantage of younger generations: intuition. Younger people are often much more immersed in the digital world. They intuitively see value in fully-digital things: twitter followers are valuable, youtube subscribers are, your camera roll is, streamed-only music and playlists, etc. Not to mention anyone who's played Fornite, Roblox, WoW, CoD, etc. A digital asset having value is intuitive. This cohort often sees visions for what might be possible. They often think about if it’s something they want to use and what’s next.

The advantage of more experienced generations: they've seen this before. They remember people dismissing the internet, dismissing Amazon, the electrification of markets, doubting ETFs, doubting the need for a PC in every home, dismissing the iPhone for not having a keyboard. They remember being non-consensus right a few times, and consensus wrong a few times before. They've lived through the technology adoption cycle multiple times and have more context for interpreting something new. This cohort often sees patterns and has incredible clarity. They often think about what the impact will be, and how to position for it.

Both can arrive at conviction, but through different vectors, and often wanting to discuss different dimensions.

Instead of age being the predictor, I would argue the more common variables are if a person has (a) an open mind and naturally entertains new ideas, and (b), maybe the most important and challenging for experienced generations: has the time to explore new ideas.

[Andreas (aantonop Team) @aantonop]

My latest video: Bitcoin Halving 2024. What to expect, myth busting, and more. https://t.co/cB5i0ozYqC

[Adrian Morris @_Adrian]

Re: The @dotkrueger summary of "Hijacking Bitcoin" I am going to take some time to focus on Point #1: "Bitcoin was intended for peer to peer transactions".

Per the White Paper #Bitcoin is a "peer to peer electronic cash system". However, what people fail to account for is that those "peers" can be individuals, cities, states, banks, companies, or even countries. I think it's time that everyone relaxes on this and expands their purview of what a "peer" (by definition) actually is.

Under this model, these peers can have cooperative or conflicting goals, which leads to holding different perspectives, and thus uses for Bitcoin. If you are reading this and take issue with that assertion, let's consider several aspects of Bitcoin’s design and its potential uses:

Definition of “Peer” in Bitcoin’s White Paper: The term “peer” in the context of Bitcoin, refers to any participant in the network who can hold and transact Bitcoin independently of centralized authorities. This is a broad definition and can include *any* entity capable of participating in the network.

With this understanding, peers can be individuals with private wallets (@saylor), companies using Bitcoin for treasury management ($MSTR), financial institutions offering crypto services (@unchainedcom), or even governmental bodies adopting digital currencies for various uses (@nayibbukele | El Salvador)

Bitcoins Decentralized Nature: Bitcoin’s protocol is designed such that anyone with the necessary software and network access can participate in the blockchain network. This universality of implementation and application implies that ‘peers’ are not limited by size, scope, or function as long as they adhere to the network’s protocols. Entities as large as countries or as small as individual consumers are all peers in the network.

Institutional | Governmental Adoption: Countries are already exploring or have directly adopted the use of Bitcoin as part of their monetary reserves or as alternative legal tender within their economic systems. (El Salvador)

Private Management | Corporate | Banking Sector Involvement: Banks, Wealth Management Funds, and companies can invest in and use Bitcoin as an asset, a medium of exchange, or a hedge against traditional currency inflation ($MSTR). Ironically, @saylor got heat a few months back for daring to insinuate that big institutions & banks being involved with #Bitcoin  at some point were a given. As if that were somehow at odds with the ethos of what Bitcoin is. As we see with the Spot Bitcoin ETF's and the pressure being applied by Banks onto the SEC to allow direct custody, there's are many groups (peers) with conflicting and cooperative interests in Bitcoin.

@halfin himself anticipated Bitcoin Banks being the norm | standard, giving additional weight to the concept of "peer to peer" being just as valid at the Micro Level (person to person) as it is at the Macro Level (Bank to Bank). This additional differentiation further underscores the flexibility of the peer-to-peer model where such large entities are peers within the network, conducting transactions directly with other entities without needing an intermediary.

Bitcoin is a "Neutral Technology": Bitcoin does not (and cannot) discriminate between the types of peers that can participate on it's network. Whether that peer is a corporation, government, or an individual, the underlying blockchain technology treats all transactions with the same level of neutrality, assuming they fulfill necessary network criteria.

I argue that Satoshi was deliberate in their use of the term "peer" and this was in order to be expansive | inclusive (conceptually) allowing for a diverse set of participants. As having a wide participant base strengthens the network, reduces the risk of being co-opted by a single entity or authority, enhances security, resilience, and contributes to a more decentralized network.

Just my two sats ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bob Burnett @boomer_btc]

When I was a boy in the late 60s and early 70s, my grandpa would slip me money on the sly. $5 here and $10 there. He was never a rich man, and he had became an adult during the Great Depression. He never got to college nor did his children. But, I was his oldest grandchild and me going to college was really important to him. When he’d give me those dollars that was his hard earned labor and he was sacrificing luxury in his life for me. When he gave me the money, he’d sometimes say, make you save this and use it to go to college. Of course, at the time I was grateful but I didn’t really understand the nature of the gift. And I did save that money and it helped me some to get to college and graduate. But the truth is that it lost a bunch of purchasing power by the time I used it. The 4-5% I earned in a saving account back then didn’t nearly keep up with the inflation of the 70s. That lost purchasing power was someone stealing the labor of my grandpa and his gift to me. The reality of all this didn’t kick in for a long time but now it is pisses me off big time.

Interestingly, I also remember my grandpa talking to me about how upset he was with Nixon for taking us off the gold standard. He used to have several silver certificates and he would snarl about how wrong it was that he couldn’t use them anymore. He knew it was a bad deal. I wish he were alive so I could tell him about Bitcoin. He’d love it.

[Marty Bent @MartyBent]

The hypocrisy of the Western driven push toward “net-zero” getting absolutely torched.

[Lyn Alden @LynAldenContact]

Most of the problems that people attribute to deflation, are instead about debt building up during periods of structural inflation and then experiencing one big catastrophic period of deflation as that all gets exhausted.

They then consider deflation itself to be bad.

[Professor OneDigit @onedigitmoney]

Bitcoin models fascinate me. I spent over three decades in engineering academia modeling everything from radar and sonar to MRI signals and X-rays. I know a little about modeling.

@dotkrueger @Giovann35084111 You seem surprised at the resistance.

@IIICapital @allenf32

[Kole Lee @kolelee_]

Stanford Endowment has bought Bitcoin at 45k.

In February, pitched IBIT to Blyth Fund, the student-run fund which manages a portion of Stanford's Endowment.

Bitcoin is now ~7% of the portfolio.

Here's the pitch that convinced them to buy: